EU considers plans to outlaw racism

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
Also really funny how Americans here say we now live in a police state when people in the USA are being arrested left and right for no good reasons,

Do you really want to compare who has the most extraordinary police powers enshrined in thier laws?

and the laws this thread is about have existed since the end of WW2.

and what Orwellian laws they are!

And please note that this is not some totalitarian regulation since most people here agree that they are right and just. It's a democracy after all, the people have spoken.

That's doubleplusgood then.

[DinoDoc]

Just for the fun of it.

Name the EU member in which you could be arrestted and held without charge, the government could ban whatever politcal organization you might happen to belong to, and whatever you might happen to do on the 'Net could be spied on.

First person to guess the answer gets a prize.

[Saint Marcus]

Britain

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
Britain

Give the man a prize! Now can we dispense with the US/Nazi double talk.

[Saint Marcus]

From CCN.com

Since the September 11 hijacked plane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Ashcroft has helped push legislation through Congress providing broad new powers to wiretap phones, monitor Internet traffic and apprehend suspects.

Criticism escalated when the administration followed up on the legislation, without consulting Congress, by proposing the creation of military tribunals to try foreigners suspected of terrorism.

Ashcroft, 59, also ordered the listening in on some conversations between inmates and their lawyers, and the questioning of 5,000 foreign men, mostly from Middle Eastern countries, a move he denied was a form of racial profiling.

The governement can do all that in the USA? Damn At least here in free Holland the governement can't do those things.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
The governement can do all that in the USA? Damn At least here in free Holland the governement can't do those things.

The difference is that I don't feel the need to mindlessly defend the government when it infringes on my rights.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


The difference is that I don't feel the need to mindlessly defend the government when it infringes on my rights.

I don't think that they are in on the little secrete yet.



Guys, I'm on my way to Germany in April. Me and some others are wanting to rent a car and see the sites in some of the surrounding countries as well.

The only real question I have is.

Where can I get a list of the things I can't do over there and can I get it now so that I can be sure and study up on it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Where can I get a list of the things I can't do over there and can I get it now so that I can be sure and study up on it.

Don't Sieg Heil anybody. It'll cost you 800 DM IIRC.

[Roland]

To all those yanks so concerned about our freedom of speech: You know, your former secretary of state, dumb piece of **** Notbright, found it worth reducing diplomatic relations because of Haider's FP becoming part of Austria's government. Must be a truly horrible man when the US PC crowd identifies him as such. And how many criminal convictions or only trials can you name against him for racist or xenophobic or hatefilled remarks ? Hmmm... lessee.... hmmm... damn, I'd say "zero". Read the tabloid or rightwing newspapers here (if you can). The laws on the book don't apply to vitually all of that. The average idiot does not reach the level of "Wiederbetätigung" or "Verhetzung".

Chris:

I'll try to address what might constitute a point of yours.

"Just as I had forseen, my two favorite European appologists tried to spin doctor their way out of this"

I suppose that's why I posted the link for everyone to see that nonsense draft.

"...and the other by trying to twist it into a USA is culturally different, so you don't understand. (sorry Mein herr,we get it just fine. )"

That's "Herr". Und wenn wir schon dabei sind, kulturelle Unterschiede bedeuten nicht dass man etwas notwendiger Weise nicht versteht, sondern lediglich, dass man den kulturellen Hintergrund berücksichtigen sollte. Das schließt auch ein dass ein US-amerikanisches Grundrechtsverständnis keineswegs universal ist, nicht einmal für den nordatlantischen Kulturkreis. Ganz im Gegenteil, es ist ein eher eigentümliches Gebilde. Sogar Kanada orientiert sich eher an der EMRK als an der Bill of Rights.

Have fun runing that through bablefish.

"Yes, but at least we don't try to regulate the thoughts of our citizens."

Public speech, not thoughts. On the other side, we don't brainwash people into being "patriotic".

"We can't imagine how you could be backward enough to NOT want said rights"

Guns: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a simple legal right, why not.
Abortion: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a decriminalised conduct, why not.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Don't Sieg Heil anybody. It'll cost you 800 DM IIRC.

Thanks KH, Ill keep that in mind.


note to self *no Sieg Heil. Find alternative form of greeting*

[Saint Marcus]

That's "Herr". Und wenn wir schon dabei sind, kulturelle Unterschiede bedeuten nicht dass man etwas notwendiger Weise nicht versteht, sondern lediglich, dass man den kulturellen Hintergrund berücksichtigen sollte. Das schließt auch ein dass ein US-amerikanisches Grundrechtsverständnis keineswegs universal ist, nicht einmal für den nordatlantischen Kulturkreis. Ganz im Gegenteil, es ist ein eher eigentümliches Gebilde. Sogar Kanada orientiert sich eher an der EMRK als an der Bill of Rights.

Let's see our American friends tackle that one

The difference is that I don't feel the need to mindlessly defend the government when it infringes on my rights.

If people voluntary chose to give up those rights, isn't that true democracy and freedom? People in Europe, at least in Germany, France, Holland (and probably many others too), have made their choice. They don't want people making hate-speeches in public. If people chose to have those rules and live under those rules, it's their own choice and decision. And that is the truest form of Freedom and Democracy.

The US constitution states that civilians have the right to buy and carry guns. What if 90% of the Americans is against that? Would you, and the governement, still keep the law as it is? Doubt it. And if so, then that's clearly a sign of dictatorship and not democracy.

[faded glory]

If people voluntary chose to give up those rights, isn't that true democracy and freedom?

No, thats sheer stupidity (worty of dutch politics)

People in Europe, at least in Germany, France, Holland (and probably many others too), have made their choice. They don't want people making hate-speeches in public

We dont eihter... but we just ignore them. We dont actually Ban them. Who's to say one day your hippie ass politics are hateful and then are treated as such under the law

If people chose to have those rules and live under those rules, it's their own choice and decision. And that is the truest form of Freedom and Democracy.

Majority rules again eh? Just because you dont like there politic views makes it ok? Also: See 2 aboves.

The US constitution states that civilians have the right to buy and carry guns. What if 90% of the Americans is against that? Would you, and the governement, still keep the law as it is?

No..the constitution is not a living document. Men didnt give the ultimate sacrifice just for someone to change it. Guns are civil liberties...

Doubt it. And if so, then that's clearly a sign of dictatorship and not democracy.

Oh yes! We are a police states because we let people defend themselves. If that 90% doesnt want to own guns...ten tey shouldnt buy them! Its that simple...we dont need moronic half-assed laws to enforce changing public opinions


Stupid troll

[faded glory]

note : I-I dont seem to be working good since I spilled coffee on it yesterday

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
If people voluntary chose to give up those rights, isn't that true democracy and freedom?

And you're complaining about American laws because of what exactly? Let me be serious for a moment. No, it isn't true democracy and freedom. The majority doesn't have the rights to infringe on the rights of the minority.

[Roland]

"If people voluntary chose to give up those rights, isn't that true democracy and freedom?"

If I give up a right that's not much at all.

However, if a majority decides to limit or abolish a right, then there are constitutional limits to that. In the parliamentary tradition of ia the netherlands, parliament is under no national judicial review - only on the european level.

It would be quite interesting to debate differences in the fundamental rights traditions of western countries, but if people prefer a troll fest, go ahead. It's called freedom of spam.

[Saint Marcus]

Majority rules again eh? Just because you dont like there politic views makes it ok?

Majority rules indeed. And as soon as the majority wants more freedom of speech then the law will be changed. There are debates on the law all the time, but as it still stands by far the majority of the people support it.

No..the constitution is not a living document. Men didnt give the ultimate sacrifice just for someone to change it. Guns are civil liberties...

Isn't it so that if 2/3 of the congress/senate/whatever votes in favor of changing the constitution it will be changed? If 90% of the Americans want it changed they elect people who agree with their views, and they in turn vote in favor of changing the constitution. Or are you telling me the constitution can't be changed at all at any time?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
It would be quite interesting to debate differences in the fundamental rights traditions of western countries,

Put forth a question for debate and see what happens. Don't automatically assume that people want a troll fest.

Majority rules indeed.

Tyranny of the Majority?

[faded glory]

Mark answer the rest of my post.

A few years from now... what if they decide that your views are to extreme? Then you are on the recieving end of this law


You know what they said about Nazi Germany. First they outlawed the Communists...nobody cared, because they were communist. Then they outlawed the Anarchists. Again, nobody seemed to give hoot. Then the Moderates....again they didnt seem to mind...Capitalists and Fascists never liked any of them. Then they came for the Capitalist's....at that time there was no one left to raise a stink.

[Wrong_shui]

BACK OFF BRUSSLES

[Saint Marcus]

You know what they said about Nazi Germany. First they outlawed the Communists...nobody cared, because they were communist. Then they outlawed the Anarchists. Again, nobody seemed to give hoot. Then the Moderates....again they didnt seem to mind...Capitalists and Fascists never liked any of them. Then they came for the Capitalist's....at that time there was no one left to raise a stink.

That's a completely different situation. All those groups were banned within a decade or two. The only parties ever outlawed in Holland were Nazi parties. Communists are still around here. Only Nazis are banned. And if you knew what the Nazis did to my country you'd agree. It's been this way for 56 years here. Laws didn't get tougher, and people aren't thrown in jail for being a Nazi (unless they commited other related crimes) anymore. And, unlike in Britain and the USA, the governement can't just tap phones and other things listed in the CNN article.

[DinoDoc]

Why isn't the Communist party banned in Europe? Thier rule was far longer and just as harsh as the Nazis were. Why ban one and not the other?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Sprayber




Guys, I'm on my way to Germany in April. Me and some others are wanting to rent a car and see the sites in some of the surrounding countries as well.

The only real question I have is.

Where can I get a list of the things I can't do over there and can I get it now so that I can be sure and study up on it.

I don't have time to read everything.

But I answer to this: Sprayber you can do everything you do in the US and some more.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
To all those yanks so concerned about our freedom of speech: You know, your former secretary of state, dumb piece of **** Notbright, found it worth reducing diplomatic relations because of Haider's FP becoming part of Austria's government. Must be a truly horrible man when the US PC crowd identifies him as such. And how many criminal convictions or only trials can you name against him for racist or xenophobic or hatefilled remarks ? Hmmm... lessee.... hmmm... damn, I'd say "zero". Read the tabloid or rightwing newspapers here (if you can). The laws on the book don't apply to vitually all of that. The average idiot does not reach the level of "Wiederbetätigung" or "Verhetzung".

Spin, spin, spin, spin,

Chris:

I'll try to address what might constitute a point of yours.

"Just as I had forseen, my two favorite European appologists tried to spin doctor their way out of this"

I suppose that's why I posted the link for everyone to see that nonsense draft.

The point is Roland, we address our problems, not try to bury them in retoric, as you and the boy try to.

That's "Herr". Und wenn wir schon dabei sind, kulturelle Unterschiede bedeuten nicht dass man etwas notwendiger Weise nicht versteht, sondern lediglich, dass man den kulturellen Hintergrund berücksichtigen sollte. Das schließt auch ein dass ein US-amerikanisches Grundrechtsverständnis keineswegs universal ist, nicht einmal für den nordatlantischen Kulturkreis. Ganz im Gegenteil, es ist ein eher eigentümliches Gebilde. Sogar Kanada orientiert sich eher an der EMRK als an der Bill of Rights.

Of course their are cultural differences, and that the bill of rights doesn't apply universally, and as for what Canada does, I find them a restrictive society and a welfare state, quite frankly.
Also, there is no need to post in German, you should let all the folks read this.

Have fun runing that through bablefish.

Didn't need to, and never use it anyway.

Public speech, not thoughts. On the other side, we don't brainwash people into being "patriotic".

Nor do we, and it isn't needed.
You shouldn't think this website is a good cross section of the USA, we seem to get a lot of rebellious youngters here.
The average American loves his country, with no need for proding. It's a shame you think otherwise, but your quite wrong.

Guns: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a simple legal right, why not.
Abortion: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a decriminalised conduct, why not.

"Silly as a Constitutional right", but a right, nontheless.
I personally am anti-gun, but the right is there.
As for abortion, I'm pro-choice, and always will be.

Let's see our American friends tackle that one

Your such a silly young man.
When you get older, and start viewing the world more objectivly, you will begin to understand all of this, but that time isn't here yet.

[Stefu]

Also, there is no need to post in German, you should let all the folks read this.

Yeah! Official language of the forum is English and Finnish!

[Saint Marcus]

Why isn't the Communist party banned in Europe? Thier rule was far longer and just as harsh as the Nazis were. Why ban one and not the other?

Reasons? I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in Holland it's obvious.

A. Nazis raped Holland
B. Nazis are per definition rascist
C. Dutch nazis worshipped Hitler, dutch communists didn't worship Stalin.

"A" is of course motivated by history. Holland didn't suffer under the soviets, only under the nazis.

"B" is also rather obvious. While many communist regimes were rather rascist, rascism isn't part of the communist/marxist idealogy, while Nazis are per definition rascist (anti-jew, anti-roma. neo-nazis are also anti-muslim).

"C" is an important distinction. Dutch Nazis, or at least the ones banned, were openly pro-Hitler. Dutch communists are openly pro-Lenin, but (openly) anti-Stalin. Lenin did make some mistakes, but can in no way be compared to Hitler or Stalin.

Eventhough in practice communism and nazism turned out remarkably similar, you have to see the clear distinction in idealogy. And Marxists aren't per definition totalitarian or rascist.

About the banned Nazi party. There were two extreme-right parties in Holland at that time. The CP and the CD.
The CP openly denied the holocaust, made no secret of their desire for a nazi-style governement in Holland, made it an official party goal to get rid of any and all foreigners or put them in camps, and openly pledged support to Hitler's actions during WW2. That got them banned.

The CD was a tad smarter than that. At first, they did similar things, but after some fines they moderated their official viewpoints. The CP wasn't very smart and after fines and warnings still did the same things. The CD did scrap all pro-nazi, pro-hitler and rascist remarks from the official party rethorics, and was therefor not banned.

However, in the end it did not matter. the CP had no seats in the parliament, and when the next elections came the CD lost their last seats too.

[Saint Marcus]

I checked

Article 1 in the Dutch Constitution is commonly known as the anti-discrimination law. Discrimination in public, in whatever form, including verbal descrimination, is illegal. Officially it says "instigating (sp) hatred".

Today has been announced that a muslim imam will be prosecuted for his anti-homosexual remarks. The guy said that gays are a danger to society.

Now there's once again the discussion between Article 1 and Article 2 of the Dutch Constitution (I believe Article 2 includes freedom of speech, have to look this one up). However, Article 1 is the most important part of the Constitution.

I'll look up the exact text of Article 1 and other articles.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"French are chauvinistic but not xenophobic. There's a difference,"

Yes, but how many countries have laws (strong suggestions?) regarding the use of foreign-import words?

If not the French, then the French Goverment would be in big trouble.

Wraith
You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you odd

The French Academy has institutionalized a department which translates to french the new english terms (most of them have to do with technology).

If the media or the public want to use the english terms instead of the french of course they can use whatever they want.


This is a great idea. It limits the penetration of the english language. What POSSIBLY can be wrong with that?

And there is an added bonus. If different media give different translations to english words there would be chaos since the word "IT Technologies" for example would have 2 and 3 and 4 translations making it impossible to know what one is talking about.

I hope Greece will do the same and fast. I support it whoheatedly.

The French are the big motha of cultural defense.


And they don't only stop at that, God bless them.

They also make obligatory that radio stations play french songs at 50% of their air play time. This has led to a new biorth of french music production and has pulled the rag under the feet of american sub culture

(I don;t support this for Greece since 80% of radio stations play greek songs at 90% of their air play time already, and this is not gonna change - it's a cultural thing).

They thoroughy translate every single movie hits the grounds of France etc etc.

Hurray for the french

What exactly is the problem?

[Saint Marcus]

The text is a bit different than I thought. Article 2 also isn't about freedom of speech. In total it's freakin long and boring (of course) so bear with me, it will take some time to go through the whole thing.

De Nederlandse Grondwet (The Dutch Constitution)

written in 1848 by J.R. Thorbecke (parts based on earlier documents of the Batavian Republic and the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)

Historical context: Holland just became a monarchy a few decades earlier after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. A document was needed to decrease the power of the monarch, and list ground rights.

Chapter 1: ground rights

Article 1: Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.

Translation: All who reside in the Netherlands, should be treated equally in all cases. Discriminations on grounds of religion, system of beliefs (??), political preference, race, gender, or on any other ground, is not permitted.

* Discrimination is not permitted. This includes verbal discrimation as well.

Article 6, subsection 1: Ieder heeft het recht zijn godsdienst of levensovertuiging, individueel of in gemeenschap met anderen, vrij te belijden, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.

Translation: Everyone has the right to his religion or system of beliefs, individually or in community with others, free to practice, within everyone's responsibility within the law.

* Freedom of religion, but only for as long as it doesn't violate the law.

Article 7, subsection 3, part A: Voor het openbaren van gedachten of gevoelens door andere dan in de voorgaande leden genoemde middelen heeft niemand voorafgaand verlof nodig wegens de inhoud daarvan, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.

Translation: Expressing thoughts or feeling through other then in previous articles mentioned means [paper, tv, radio, mentioned in Article 7, subsections 1 and 2] does not require permission for it's content, within everyone's responsibility within the law.

* Freedom of speech. It states anyone can say what he or she wants, without needing permission. However, only as long as it doesn't violate the law.


So people here have freedom of speech and religion and just about everything else, but with one vital addition. The freedom a certain person has/wants should not conflict with other laws. Every article about people's rights ends with "behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet". And as Article 1, the most important article of the Constitution, states: Discrimination is not allowed. So your civil liberties may not violate Article 1 of the Constitution, which bans all forms of discrimination, including verbal.

And as some Americans always say...the Constitution is a living document.

[Saint Marcus]

The governement can not change the Constitution. Only the Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber, parliament) is allowed to change the Constitution. If it decides to do this, with a 51% majority, the parliament itself will be resolved. A new election will be held. Then the new parliament needs to vote on the change. If at least 100 out of 150 votes is for the change (abstains count as nay votes), the vote goes to the Eerste Kamer (First Chamber, senate). If in the senate at least 50 out of 75 vote for the change (absains are also considered nay votes) the Constitution is changed.

And this is of course pointless. Most Dutchmen support Article 1. 51% of the parliament will never decide to change Article 1, and if it did the new elected parliament will without any doubt vote against the change and certainly not in favor with at least 100 votes. So changing Article 1 is impossible. Only a European law stands above the Constitution, and only if that states that Discrimination in a verbal way is allowed, then it will be allowed in Holland.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ugh.. that Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution is what I find abhorrent. Why should discrimination be prohibited. You gave reasons for outlawing Nazi speech (which I also disagree with), but what is the reason for outlawing ALL discriminatory speech?